The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future
January 07, 2025 —
Kellie Ros - ConsensusDocsThe havoc material tariffs have caused the construction industry is nothing new. President-Elect Donald Trump imposed heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first administration in 2016. While the tariffs themselves were not wholly unexpected, the ripple effect of those tariffs (coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic) caused unexpected challenges for the construction industry. Those included allocating the risk of the additional costs caused by tariffs, supply and demand issues, grappling with escalation clauses, and navigating fixed price projects. The industry must now utilize the lessons learned from the rear-view mirror to strategically prepare for what was promised to be a second round of tariffs come January 2025.
Tariffs’ Impacts on Material Prices Everywhere
New or increased tariffs have the potential to raise prices for a wide range of construction inputs. Based on simple supply and demand principles, this includes inputs produced domestically that compete with foreign imports. For example, if a 20% tariff is imposed on Chinese steel, contractors may look to procure Brazil or U.S. steel in an effort to cut their costs. Such a rush to those less-costly alternatives may result in a supply shortage or an increase in prices in the marketplace across the globe. This occurred in 2016 when material prices indirectly related to the inputs on which the tariffs were imposed even increased. Contractors may be well served to get ahead of anticipated price increases and purchase materials now or take other actions in negotiating contracts to protect themselves.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Ros may be contacted at
kros@pecklaw.com
Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction
March 14, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In
Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions.
In
Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis.
As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The
Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Continuing Breach Doctrine
May 28, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHave you ever heard of the “continuing breach” doctrine? Probably not. It is not a doctrine commonly discussed. It’s a doctrine used to try to argue around the statute of limitations.
In an older Southern District Court of Florida case, Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 188 F.R.Ed. 667, 679 (S.D.Fla. 1999), the court explained: “Under this [continuing breach] doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.”
Recently, this doctrine came up in an opinion by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In Hernando County, Florida v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D947b (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. The trial court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. However, the complaint alleged the defendant’s failure to comply “with numerous other intertwined, ongoing, and continuing contractual duties and obligations.” Hernando County, supra. The Fifth District reversed based on the continuing breach doctrine: “Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract.” Id. quoting and citing Allapattah Servs., Inc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required
April 15, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment.
Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases
August 19, 2015 —
Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLPIn Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit.
In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLPMr. Mahoney may be contacted at
mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHouses are selling quickly in the Daytona Beach, Florida area, but many of the buyers are investors who are buying up homes in hopes of selling them several years later. Maryke Guild, a real estate agent said that “in three, four years’ time, when the market has been resaturated, those guys are going to sell at a profit, there’s no doubt.” But while the housing market is good news for investors, it’s actually bad news for homebuilders.
“Flips are not what’s going to sustain the market,” said John Adams the general manager of the Adams, Cameron & Co., a Daytona-area real estate firm. Contractors are building new homes in the Daytona area, but the number of homes built in Volusia County in 2013 is a little more than a fifth of what was built in 2005. In adjacent Flagler County, homebuilding is at less than a tenth of what it was in 2004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved
April 17, 2019 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location.
Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is:
500 Capitol Mall
Suite 2150
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims
September 14, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHurricane Irma barreled down on us with all of her forceful winds and torrential rains. She was scary and relentless. There was mass evacuation. Commercial flights were booked. Trains were booked. There was gridlock with the concern as to whether gas would even be available. There were many people that did not evacuate, uncertain as to the eventual path Irma would take. Originally projecting an easterly course, people on the east coast evacuated to the west coast, central Florida or out-of-state. She then shifted to a westerly course forcing people on the west coast to evacuate to the east coast, central Florida, or out-of-state. It was chaos stemming from the total unpredictability of Mother Nature. It was chaos stemming from the dreadful images of Hurricane Harvey. Mother Nature and all of her uncertainty is undoubtedly frightening, as proven by her devastation throughout the amazing state of Florida.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
